12 Dec
2005
12 Dec
'05
12:04 p.m.
Hi,
and thank's for your reply.
OK, I'll adjust my failure_route logging.
Regarding my second question, it turns out that my syslog was printing
out xlog's in wrong sequence.....or the childrens.
I'm logging all my checks, and
the xlog message for the ACK from gw (before the next INVITE) came right
after the INVITE.....
Sorry about that.
br hw
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 14:45 +0200, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
On 12/09/05 20:53, Helge Waastad wrote:
--
Helge Waastad
Senior Engineer
Systemavdelingen
Smartnet
Tlf: (+47) 67830017
Hi,
I was just wondering if there has been any changes to the pseudo
variables?
I receive a 302 with a new contact address,
however if I print out in the failure router $ct I get the $from.....
in the failure_route block is processed the original INVITE, not the 302
reply.
br hw
PS, another thing I've realized now, is that I have a problem solving
the new INVITE after a redirect.
Since the new INVITE after redirect has the same call-id, does that mean
that all flags etc is kept and still are valid?
If you handle the redirect on server using the uac_redirect module, then
the flags are kept.
Cheers,
Daniel
> For instance;
> INVITE: xxx@<cisco-gw> -> yyy@<domain>
> REDIRECT: <- 302 Contact: zzz@<domain>
> NEW INVITE xxx@<cisco-gw> -> zzz@<domain>
>
> I have a : if (uri=~"^sip:yyy@.*") in the beginning of my script and it
> return true on the new INVITE..
>
> Is this right?
>
>
> br hw
>
>
>